VI – Self-Defense

The following legal decisions concern the law of self-defense. Some of the rulings are final and others are not. They’re presented here, along with salient excerpts, to be read for their excellent judicial logic about the absolute civil right of armed self-defense as established by the framers of the US Constitution.

[ Read the SemperVerus article, USA State Constitutions Providing for Armed Self-Defense ]

Also see the Firearms Policy Coalition Interactive State Freedom Index Map, which ranks the percentage of Second Amendment freedom citizens have in each of the 50 states and Washington, DC for the unencumbered civil right to keep and bear arms (only Kansas and New Hampshire earn a perfect 100% score).

US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-5 ruling: Cheeseman v. New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport (July 17, 2026) by Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman (pdf).

This 192-page ruling strikes down New Jersey’s “assault firearm” ban and its ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds, declaring that both violate the Second Amendment.

“Because semi-automatic rifles are firearms, they are ‘Arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment. The Constitution thus ‘presumptively protects’ individuals’ right to keep and bear semi-automatic rifles.”

“The evidence shows that [semi-automatic rifles are a class of arms ‘in common use for lawful purposes’]….[T]here are around 24 million AR-l5s and similar sports weapons in circulation—a figure that is surpassed only by the number of registered handgun owners within the United States….[T]hese weapons are used for lawful purposes including self-defense, target shooting, hunting, and pest control, and…their build and design features, such as their mild recoil, ergonomics, and accuracy make them ‘a good choice for self-defense’.…[T]he many millions of semi-automatic rifles in circulation for lawful purposes are plainly in common use.”

“We therefore hold that New Jersey’s complete prohibition on the possession of semi-automatic rifles runs afoul of the Second Amendment’s protections.”

“[M]agazines are ‘arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment.”

“[T]he Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms ‘extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.’”

“Because magazines feed ammunition into certain guns, and ammunition is necessary for such a gun to function as intended, magazines are ‘arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment.”

“The text of the Second Amendment covers all magazines, not just magazines that New Jersey considers ‘standard capacity….[N]othing in [the] text of the Second Amendment suggests that the capacity of a magazine bears on whether it receives constitutional protection. So it cannot be that a magazine that can hold ten rounds is an ‘Arm’ covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment but a magazine that can hold eleven rounds is not….Thus, magazines—including those that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition—are presumptively entitled to constitutional protection.”

“As one of our sister circuits observed based on similar evidence: ‘There may well be some capacity above which magazines are not in common use but, if so, the record is devoid of evidence as to what that capacity is; in any event, that capacity surely is not ten.’ We agree.” * & *

US Supreme Court 6-3 ruling: Wolford et al. v. Lopez, Attorney General of Hawaii (June 25, 2026) by Justice Samuel Alito (pdf).

This ruling strikes down a Hawaii law that sharply restricts where people can carry firearms for self-defense in public.

“This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives. We hold that the law is unconstitutional.”

“In late 18th-century America, the need for firearms for self-defense was acute. There were no police forces, and most Americans lived in rural areas, often in homes located miles from the closest neighbor. If these homes were attacked, the residents were on their own, and their survival might well depend on the availability of a firearm to ward off assailants. In light of this reality, it is not surprising that the right to keep and bear arms was included among the other treasured liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.”

“Merely local attitudes can neither shrink nor inflate the meaning of fundamental Bill of Rights guarantees that apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurring in her opinion: “The Second Amendment secures the pre-existing right of the people to have and carry weapons for their defense…. Mere disapproval of protected conduct is not a valid reason to severely restrict it.” * & *

[ Read the SemperVerus article, The Guns That Won World War II ]

District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruling: Tyree Benson v. United States (March 5, 2026) by Associate Judge Joshua Deahl (pdf).

This ruling states that, because firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition are in common and ubiquitous use for lawful purposes, the District of Columbia’s outright ban on them violates the US Second Amendment, and that these magazines qualify as “arms” protected by the Constitution.

“Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition are ubiquitous in our country, numbering in the hundreds of millions, accounting for about half of the magazines in the hands of our citizenry, and they come standard with the most popular firearms sold in America today. Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country, we agree with Benson and the United States that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment.”

“An 11+ magazine facilitates armed self-defense because it is used to load a firearm, and it then feeds successive cartridges into the gun’s firing chamber as a person shoots—a particularly essential feature for semiautomatic guns—eliminating any need to manually reload the gun until the magazine is spent and itself needs to be reloaded….Because magazines feed ammunition into certain guns, and ammunition is necessary for such a gun to function as intended, magazines are ‘arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment….Magazines of all capacities are thus arms covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment….Any components integral to a firearm’s operation, like magazines, fit comfortably within the Second Amendment’s protection of arms.”

“…arms that are utterly ubiquitous in this country, like the hundreds of millions of 11+ magazines, cannot be banned. Just as handguns cannot be banned because they are the most preferred [type of] firearm in the nation, the 11+ magazines that tend to accompany them are the most preferred type of magazine and likewise cannot be banned.”

“…one perfectly coherent view is that law-abiding citizens everywhere should have access to the same arms that are legal, widely owned, and generally available throughout the rest of the country.” *

Read More…

• By semperverus
• Posted on 05/07/202007/27/2026
• 25 Comments on Important Judicial Decisions Regarding Self-Defense Law